W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-webont-wg@w3.org > June 2002

Re: TEST: Re: notes for 6/6 until 1:10 (oneOf/sameClassAs)

From: Jos De_Roo <jos.deroo.jd@belgium.agfa.com>
Date: Tue, 25 Jun 2002 21:38:38 +0200
To: "pat hayes <phayes" <phayes@ai.uwf.edu>
Cc: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>, www-webont-wg@w3.org
Message-ID: <OF4797BC32.1455D75E-ONC1256BE3.006A076A@agfa.be>

[...]

> >So I'm currently against rules such as:
> >   { :rule9o1 . ?L owl:item ?x } log:implies { ?x a [ owl:oneOf ?L ] } 
.
> >from
> >   http://www.agfa.com/w3c/euler/owl-rules
>
> I don't follow. That rule doesn't have an existential in the
> conclusion, does it? Both the variables in the conclusion are also in
> the antecedent. You seem to want to rule out any *terms* that refer
> to classes in the conclusion, not just existentials. That seems
> capricious to me. And the answer is, no, there isn't any logical name
> for that.

trying to make up my mind...
the places where we would like to find "just" triples are in
1/ queries
   -> the triples in a graph which can be dereferenced
2/ rules
   -> the triples inside a N3 { } embedding
3/ function *terms*
   -> the triples composing
      :value :functor ( rdf-list-items ) .

-- ,
Jos De Roo, AGFA http://www.agfa.com/w3c/jdroo/
Received on Tuesday, 25 June 2002 15:39:18 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:57:50 GMT